Mandatory Reading Assignment
01-30-2008, 09:32 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Shore
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the company--and cars-- which that author (and I suspect LTC, too) long for:
http://www.coochas.com/porsche/Resou...0Evolution.wmv
This is also why a 10 year old 993 (in good condition) sells today for 75% (or more) of what it cost when it was new.
http://www.coochas.com/porsche/Resou...0Evolution.wmv
This is also why a 10 year old 993 (in good condition) sells today for 75% (or more) of what it cost when it was new.
01-30-2008, 10:32 PM
#18
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but wasn't it so much more than Dr. W that killed it? You could also blame the American consumers, for, after all, WE are what has driven the evolution that Rome describes. WE have no Autobahn, and West Texas highways are too straight to be a good substitute. WE hate getting smoked at stoplights by Corvettes that cost half as much, not to mention by teenagers in WRX-TSIs. Those of US who can afford Porsches generally want to drive them as much as possible (that nasty phrase, commuter car) and don't like having our hemorrhoids pounded by hard suspensions and harder seats. WE want to be able to hear our CDs and satellite radios. WE might even want (gasp!!) cup-holders. In fact, there are more of US who want the comfy, stoplight-racing GT than who want a "real" sports car. And from PAG's point of view, maybe those who really do want a sports car can just wait in line and pony up the bucks for a GT variant, and the wait and price tag probably won't be too far off from what we could expect if PAG was still just building 993 Turbos the old-fashioned way.
God knows, I would never defend Dr. W., but, in the words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is US."
God knows, I would never defend Dr. W., but, in the words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is US."
01-30-2008, 11:19 PM
#19
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Shore
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-30-2008, 11:49 PM
#20
I don't know how much I agree with the article, but I have to admit the GTS was a wasteful exercise for Porsche. I am sure on the streets of Miami or Orange county it will be a big hit but really it has no purpose and is a step backwards. I don't hate it I just don't care for it.
I for one would like to see a 6 speed in an AWD turbo, thats cool!
Maybe the use of different materials and take off 500 LBS and beef up the suspension but not eliminate the AWD...
Sadly, a reworked transyberia with a little more attraction would have been key in limited #'s, a la land Rover Defender 90 thinking.
Kind of like having a sports car division and an off road division.
1500 of those tap dancing Rhino's with 405 HP would get the ball rollings.
Included in the price would be a off road trip accross South America where the cars get picked up.
I agree on the original 911's, by suprise I came across a near mint (1 owner)87 carrera 3.2 cab and bought it, was looking for a 993 and newer but couldn't find a nice one locally at the time. I think it is one of the coolest cars I have driven. It is not too comfortable but is a complete joy to drive, I can see why so many love the air-cooled so much. You truly are part of the car and it carries a beautiful philosophy and pedegree. It doesn't have to have 500 HP, your hands get clammy just driving it to the liquor store.
But in the end we still love our CTT and would have never bought any other SUV til this day, nothing holds a candle stick to it for driving pleasure in SUV form and function. Now how Porsche could stick a CD based NAV in and leave the client sole without even an option to buy updated discs may have been the start of the demise.
Why doesn't anyone write an article on how Porsche deals with customer issues like this?
I for one would like to see a 6 speed in an AWD turbo, thats cool!
Maybe the use of different materials and take off 500 LBS and beef up the suspension but not eliminate the AWD...
Sadly, a reworked transyberia with a little more attraction would have been key in limited #'s, a la land Rover Defender 90 thinking.
Kind of like having a sports car division and an off road division.
1500 of those tap dancing Rhino's with 405 HP would get the ball rollings.
Included in the price would be a off road trip accross South America where the cars get picked up.
I agree on the original 911's, by suprise I came across a near mint (1 owner)87 carrera 3.2 cab and bought it, was looking for a 993 and newer but couldn't find a nice one locally at the time. I think it is one of the coolest cars I have driven. It is not too comfortable but is a complete joy to drive, I can see why so many love the air-cooled so much. You truly are part of the car and it carries a beautiful philosophy and pedegree. It doesn't have to have 500 HP, your hands get clammy just driving it to the liquor store.
But in the end we still love our CTT and would have never bought any other SUV til this day, nothing holds a candle stick to it for driving pleasure in SUV form and function. Now how Porsche could stick a CD based NAV in and leave the client sole without even an option to buy updated discs may have been the start of the demise.
Why doesn't anyone write an article on how Porsche deals with customer issues like this?
01-30-2008, 11:55 PM
#21
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
01-31-2008, 12:19 AM
#22
yes, a 6 speed manual like the above models in a CTT, even a dual clutch setup with paddles would have been cool at least for starters.
Eliminating AWD in an SUV makes zero sense, everthing else is cool.
I think German cars in the U.S. have always been like this, the options you cared less about they would stick it in and the options that were very desired were never offered.
Kinda like sticking a NAV unit in a GT3 RS but not give us those beautiful Carrera GT seats even as an option.
Eliminating AWD in an SUV makes zero sense, everthing else is cool.
I think German cars in the U.S. have always been like this, the options you cared less about they would stick it in and the options that were very desired were never offered.
Kinda like sticking a NAV unit in a GT3 RS but not give us those beautiful Carrera GT seats even as an option.
01-31-2008, 08:05 AM
#24
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
01-31-2008, 08:45 AM
#25
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
01-31-2008, 09:36 AM
#26
Pepper Bartender
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
On occasion, I have to agree with ltc, sort of. The beauty of the Cayenne, for me, is the combination of off-road and on-road abilities. That it upsets some folks who think Porsche should have never built an SUV is just an added bonus. The GTS doesn't make sense to me and, IMHO, is an insult to a proud model designation. On the other hand, 22" wheels on the Cayenne don't make sense to me. Buying any SUV that will never see the far side of the curb doesn't make sense to me. Pop music before the 1960s and after the 1970s doesn't make sense to me. But I'm a simple-minded old coot and I recognize that the public marketplace and I often disagree. So, while I find the original rant from autoextremist (sic) entertaining, we should remember a few things.
First, marketing hyperbole didn't begin with Porsche and, at Porsche, it didn't begin with the Cayenne, much less the GTS. Second, no matter how much of a pre-Cayenne Porsche snob one might be, the concept that any group of us (even including air-cooled 911 purists) has the right to dictate what the company does simply doesn't make sense, either. We can all be P.O.'d that they didn't do it just right, or that they overcharge for the goods (has any 911 of the past 20 years been a "bargain"?), but the fact is that they are meeting the market where the market will go. The bottom may fall out of that market sooner rather than later, but their goal is to sell as many vehicles as possible for as much money as possible. If we owned the company we could set other goals. Porsche has typically occupied the niche of a "semi-exclusive" car company and their current market endeavors seem to fit into that niche.
In short, I don't think we can blame the "supply" side for simply giving the "demand" side what it wants and will pay for, and we should take all auto marketing about as seriously as we do the SuperBowl half-time show.
First, marketing hyperbole didn't begin with Porsche and, at Porsche, it didn't begin with the Cayenne, much less the GTS. Second, no matter how much of a pre-Cayenne Porsche snob one might be, the concept that any group of us (even including air-cooled 911 purists) has the right to dictate what the company does simply doesn't make sense, either. We can all be P.O.'d that they didn't do it just right, or that they overcharge for the goods (has any 911 of the past 20 years been a "bargain"?), but the fact is that they are meeting the market where the market will go. The bottom may fall out of that market sooner rather than later, but their goal is to sell as many vehicles as possible for as much money as possible. If we owned the company we could set other goals. Porsche has typically occupied the niche of a "semi-exclusive" car company and their current market endeavors seem to fit into that niche.
In short, I don't think we can blame the "supply" side for simply giving the "demand" side what it wants and will pay for, and we should take all auto marketing about as seriously as we do the SuperBowl half-time show.
My additional $.02. All marketing/promotion is either greed-driven, full of hyperbole, or downright untruthful. Is Bud Light the best beer made like commercials claim? If you invest with Merrill Lynch will it guarantee you'll become filthy rich? Can you play golf like Tiger Woods when you use a Nike golf ball like the commercials intimate? Is John McCain a Reagan conservative because his commercials/speeches now say he is?
However.. I'm going to add RHINO to the nickname thread.. "tap shoes on a rhino" was the best line in the entire piece.
01-31-2008, 10:00 AM
#27
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario - Ottawa area
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ultimately the article is a critique of a large Porsche as opposed to just large vehicles; we can assume that he acknowledges the need for more space for various functions.
the propostion that Porsche should not have built this vehicle must be premised on 2 conditions. One would be that the vehicle class cannot have a strong sport component. this article forwards few if any reasons why the class inherently should be excluded from that characteristic; i will help him!
the suggestions of weight and centre of gravity seem somewhat obvious starts on the case, however those same isssues are present throughout "sports" car development so they are not sufficient conditions to preclude inclusion in the sport class. Those 2 characteristics do not exclude, they simply constrain various other aspects of the sport class like speed, handling etc. Well, speed certainly isn't an arguement for exclusion of a large vehicle; look at the numbers for the CTT. With PDCC, flat cornering is easily par for the sport class, so that doesn't kick us out. i suggest there are no reasons that are sufficient to kick large vehicles out of a sport class.
the second condition would be that another car company was better suited to exploiting the sport aspect than Porsche. Maybe he is hoping that Lambo or Ferrari will show Porsche how a large sporty vehicle should be built. the article of course is silent.
so, i guess i would ask the writer why Porsche should be excluded from trying to maximize the sport characteristics of the large vehicle class. that is the issue that the GTS ads go directly to addressing; it is a theme used since introduction of the Cayenne. The additional weight introduced for the off road characteristics certainly make the task for Porsche more difficult; the GTS tries to address that issue; i don't think that objective is bankrupt of integrity or merit.
the propostion that Porsche should not have built this vehicle must be premised on 2 conditions. One would be that the vehicle class cannot have a strong sport component. this article forwards few if any reasons why the class inherently should be excluded from that characteristic; i will help him!
the suggestions of weight and centre of gravity seem somewhat obvious starts on the case, however those same isssues are present throughout "sports" car development so they are not sufficient conditions to preclude inclusion in the sport class. Those 2 characteristics do not exclude, they simply constrain various other aspects of the sport class like speed, handling etc. Well, speed certainly isn't an arguement for exclusion of a large vehicle; look at the numbers for the CTT. With PDCC, flat cornering is easily par for the sport class, so that doesn't kick us out. i suggest there are no reasons that are sufficient to kick large vehicles out of a sport class.
the second condition would be that another car company was better suited to exploiting the sport aspect than Porsche. Maybe he is hoping that Lambo or Ferrari will show Porsche how a large sporty vehicle should be built. the article of course is silent.
so, i guess i would ask the writer why Porsche should be excluded from trying to maximize the sport characteristics of the large vehicle class. that is the issue that the GTS ads go directly to addressing; it is a theme used since introduction of the Cayenne. The additional weight introduced for the off road characteristics certainly make the task for Porsche more difficult; the GTS tries to address that issue; i don't think that objective is bankrupt of integrity or merit.
01-31-2008, 12:50 PM
#28
Pepper Bartender
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
All good comments.. and to think the GTS was what got the guy started... Lord help him with the newest model in 2010.. and of course, the resulting PAG marketing............
'10 Cayenne GTS(h) *
*hybrid!
Do I hear Larry and he about to commit hara-kiri? .... wait Larry already did. He's got a soul-mate in autoextremist.com
'10 Cayenne GTS(h) *
*hybrid!
Do I hear Larry and he about to commit hara-kiri? .... wait Larry already did. He's got a soul-mate in autoextremist.com
01-31-2008, 08:47 PM
#29
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-01-2008, 02:25 AM
#30
It is true that Porsche did not follow its philosophy in building sportscars when they designed the Cayenne. Instead, they re-invented themselves and created a different philosophy for their SUV. This is why they are such a great company.
How come no one is ranting about BMW? The X5 is 3 times the offender that the Cayenne GTS is. With gadgets galore, everything in that vehicle is marketing driven. It's a SUV that cannot go offroad. Of course, another tier downward, you have all those "Crossover" vehicles designed for people who just want to look like they are driving a SUV.
Great German cars of the past were often described as being "built like a tank". With the Cayenne, Porsche built a very fast tank. Gosh this thing is great!
How come no one is ranting about BMW? The X5 is 3 times the offender that the Cayenne GTS is. With gadgets galore, everything in that vehicle is marketing driven. It's a SUV that cannot go offroad. Of course, another tier downward, you have all those "Crossover" vehicles designed for people who just want to look like they are driving a SUV.
Great German cars of the past were often described as being "built like a tank". With the Cayenne, Porsche built a very fast tank. Gosh this thing is great!